> > > I like the 192.168.42.105/24 thing for netmasks.
> > Just a note.
> > If I remember right, from a discussion on an italian mailing-list about
> > networking, the bits in a netmask should be contiguous but it is not
> > strictly required. So the /24 part means nothing if you have not
> > contiguous bits in the mask.
AFAIU, the _intention_ of the original RFC writers was only contiguous
netmasks, but they didn't write it down because they didn't think about the
other possibility... and implementers then went out of their way (well, not
too much :) to allow non-contiguous netmasks.
> Oh, it is strictly required. Some OSes may not require it, but the
> RFC specs, and some other OSes definitely do.
Modern OSes don't allow non-contiguous bitmasks anymore, as per latest
RFCs. The idea of a non-contiguous netmask is slightly brain damaged
anyway, Comer's "Internetworking with TCP/IP", vol I (3rd ed, 1995),
chapter 10 notwithstanding ;-)
-- Horst von Brand firstname.lastname@example.org Casilla 9G, Viņa del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/